Old Catholic books prove corruption in Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Suzi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Suzi

Guest
My mom and dad made a visit to me this last week. My father is somewhat of a self-taught scholar, studying up to 30 hours a week in scriptural matters. He does not take anything at face-value, and he does not form an opinion without the scriptures affirming the doctrine. We discussed Catholicism at length, since I will becoming Catholic (although I did not reveal that to my parents as of yet). I was shocked at how much I revealed as to my beliefs, and quite surprised that my father said, well at least you’re saved, but I won’t believe that". My father is respectful of my beliefs since he says that I am just like him in regard to scholarly pursuits. Anyway, I found out that my Uncle (prior to his death a few years ago) was an avid collector of old and rare books, specifically dealing with religion. He would spend hours and hours a week in bookstores digging through stacks of books. He had quite an extensive collection of “Catholic” books, which had a seal on the inside verifying it was approved by the Vatican Censur (sp?) for Catholic reading. It is in these old, rare and “no longer published” books that my father and uncle state there is proof to the corruption of the Catholic church. My uncle later sold these books to Jack Chick of Jack Chick publications (renowned anti-Catholic). I tried to have him give me specifics, but he didn’t get into any deep details. Suffice it to say, these are issues he and my uncle discussed over a 20-or so-year period, and these books were no longer published since they would prove 'devastating" to the church. Whatever our discussions covered, I was not swayed in my committment to becoming Catholic, however, I would like to be enlightened on this “seal” by the Vatican Censur that is on books approved for Catholic reading. Is this even valid?? Thanks to anyone who can help and assist me in defending my faith and the Catholic church. :bible1:
 
As for the seal by the Vatican Censur, I know nothing. I know that some Catholic books carry an imprimatur stating that the content of the book is in accord with Catholic doctrine.

As for the rest, I don’t think any serious Catholic would ever deny that there has been varying amounts of corruption in the Church over the years. But it is difficult to counter any over-sensationalized accounts of this corruption when the people speaking of it won’t give specifics. One of the ground rules when speaking to someone about the faith should be to have them furnish some kind of documentation for their allegations.

Also, while there has undoubtedly been corruption in the Church, the Church’s opponents throughout history have not always been entirely above-board in their anti-Catholic tactics. To the point where some people just simply wrote fictional books and passed them off as truth (e.g. Maria Monk).
 
I am guessing that the seal that your father was referring to was something called the Imprimatur which is granted by a bishop that says the book is without errors on matters of faith and morals. Imprimatur means let it be printed. This comes after a censor gives the book Nihil Obstat meaning that nothing stands in the way of it being printed. Referring again to matters of faith and morals.

These two things are how the Church certifies books and other works, and it only refers to matters of faith and morals concerning dogmas and doctrines.

Without knowing the title of the books in question it is hard to make a judgement on the books. Especially when the accusation comes from your father, who hardly sounds unbiased. Many protestants additionally believe that many things the Church teaches are wrong and your father may have been going on that premise as well.
 
It is impossible to say anything one way or the other about the books in question without more specific info concerning them.

However, what I can say is that Catholic books often contain a nihil obstat and an imprimatur at the front of the book. From Webster’s Dictionary, **nihil obstat **[Latin: nothing obstructs]: certification by an official censor of the Roman Catholic Church that he has examined a given book and found nothing in it contrary to the teachings of the Church concerning faith and morals; imprimatur [Latin: let it be printed]: permission to publish or print a book granted by an ecclesiastical censor [a bishop, i think] of the Roman Catholic Church.

This goes along with St. Paul’s admonition of 1 Thes 5:21, “test everything; hold fast what is good”

When reading books that touch on faith and morals, I personally prefer reading ones that have a nihil obstat and an imprimatur.

Here’s a link to a little more info about a nihil obstat and an imprimatur: cin.org/mateo/mat93008.html
 
I’m not sure what would be so devastating to the Catholic Church that one would find in older Catholic books. Perhaps they spoke of worship of the saints, but then again Englishmen used to worship judges and their spouses (the word used to mean venerate in addition to adore). Maybe they spoke at length of the dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus . I’m really not sure what your fater thinks was in them.
 
I would seriously question anything that finds its way into the hands of Jack Chick.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
I would seriously question anything that finds its way into the hands of Jack Chick.
I would also seriously question the alleged content of books that are now unavailable for viewing. What kind of conclusion can one draw from a source that can’t even been verified?

My answer would be: “I’d have to see these books (or reliable excerpts, i.e., taken in context) to draw any kind of conclusion on them.”
 
Of course there’s corruption, I don’t think even the catholic church denies that. A friend of mine has a book from a few hundred years ago that was “approved” by the catholic church. The nature of the book: how to properly identify and burn a witch!!! The church is full man-made mistakes, but that doesn’t mean much. A good paralell would be to say that just because the United States of America makes mistakes doesn’t make the constitution any less brilliant and beautiful in it’s content or it’s objectives.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
I would seriously question anything that finds its way into the hands of Jack Chick.
My seniments exactly!
BTW, I recently compeleted a seminar on The Papacy in Church History: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. At times I found it very surprising and disturbing; however, it was very consoling to know that, though there were some very dubious popes, they never deviated from the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles. Annunciata:)
 
Of course there’s corruption, I don’t think even the catholic church denies that. A friend of mine has a book from a few hundred years ago that was “approved” by the catholic church. The nature of the book: how to properly identify and burn a witch!!! The church is full man-made mistakes, but that doesn’t mean much. A good paralell would be to say that just because the United States of America makes mistakes doesn’t make the constitution any less brilliant and beautiful in it’s content or it’s objectives.
When you are saying it is approved by the Church, that is misleading. It means that the book was found to be without error concerning matters of faith and morals in regards to the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Additionally, who is to say that it was wrong to publish a book on how to find and burn a witch. Perhaps they were much more aware of spiritual warfare that surrounds us. People did and still do delve into these diabolical practices.
 
I’ve researched Catholic issues for more than 15 years, both using modern and antiquated texts. Never, ever, not even once have I encountered any materials, even 200 year old books in special reference sections of private libraries, that were bearing any seal of a “Vatican Censu(o)r”. It is true that the Church has repeatedly censored material through the years, in various countries, but it’s been the cardinal who has employed extraordinary censors, not the Vatican. Until the late 19th Century, it was rare for there to be a “unified” legislative/administrative function at the Holy See.

Further, the Church does not use the term “Vatican” in seals. The “Vatican” refers to the city/state which developed with the unification of Italy in the 1870s. Within the Church, the actual name is the Holy See or Sancta Sedes. If he has encountered a seal that says “Vatican Censur”, then it’s bogus.

My guess is that if you were to read the actual historical texts of the Church, what we might consider “corruption” in today’s terms was anything but corrupt in the terms of its day. But there has indeed been a fair share of Catholic corruption through the years, with the events of the late 70s being a very modern, well-documented instance of it. I guess that makes our Church of Sinners everybit as real as the Jim Bakker scandals, the Lutheran scandals, the Orthodox heresies, etc. There’s no doubt that the Borgia popes were absurd. But they were who they were and at the time, they were leading citizens. We’d hope that our Church would never put someone like them in office again…but it’s obviously possible.

Regardless, the history of Catholicism is hardly hidden. We’re a fairly open book and the skeletons always come out. If you want to read up on it, there are a thousand or more legitimate scholars whose works you can find in a good reference library…and they’re not pulling any punches, either.
 
Father Benedict Groeschel lectured at a local parish on the topic of Catholic Bashing.

His point was that if you want to bash the church you don’t have to resort to lies, just tell the truth because there has been more than enough corruption in the church over the years.

The church is an institution of men and men, being fallible creatures, are going to succomb to greed and avarice. You need to judge the institution as as a whole.
 
40.png
doc_ball:
Of course there’s corruption . . . . A friend of mine has a book from a few hundred years ago that was “approved” by the catholic church. The nature of the book: how to properly identify and burn a witch!!!
Did the Protestants also have written guidelines for identifying witches? Or did they just wing it? Here’s one issue on which the finger points both ways.
 
Not too many years ago, each diocese had a “censor librorum” whose function was to review books published by Catholics with respect to matters of faith and morals. The “imprimatur” was granted by the bishop. I don’t recall that there was ever a “Vatican” censor!

Even when the nihil obstat and imprimatur were granted, it did not mean that the book was free from error, only that it did not teach wrongly on matters of faith and morals. I think perhaps even “The DaVinci Code” could have been approved if it only contained egregious historical errors, but not errors on faith and morals!
 
40.png
mercygate:
Did the Protestants also have written guidelines for identifying witches? Or did they just wing it? Here’s one issue on which the finger points both ways.

At least to some extent, Protestants borrowed from the Malleus Maleficarum (= Hammer of Witches), which written by two Dominicans, Jakob Sprenger & Heirich Kramer. (Father Sprenger was also a zealous promoter of the Rosary.) The site also has a link to the Bull “Summis Desiderantes” of 1484, which is sometimes said to have stimulated persecution of witches. The “Malleus Malleficarum”, first published in 1486, is probably what is referred to in post 9.​

Both Catholics and Protestants produced a very extensive literature on the various aspects of witchcraft 😦

Demonologie, written in 1598 by James VI of Scotland, is one of the better known books by a Protestant on this subject.

For some of the personalities - see this

A counter to belief in witchcraft was this ##
 
I’ve bumped into few people more impressed with their own learning for less reason than the self-educated man. Vague references to books that cannot be seen and read do not an argument make.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Common sense says that if some anti-Catholic possesed books devestating to the Church, they wouldn’t keep them under wraps, they would be shouting from the rooftops.

I see this all the time. A certain anti-Catholic who carps at Dave Armstrong all the time says that a careful study of Medieval history will reveal the falseness of Catholic claims that is like dynamite waiting to explode the Papacy. He never puts forth an argument, but rather just says Catholics need to intensively study Medieval history to see it. I’m sorry, but if it is so devestating, we would hear an actual case for it endlessly.

Scott
 
I have a friend who has a brother-in-law who has a cousin who knew someone who had heard about a book…

Unless you can hold these questionable books in your hands, or discern the author and title so you can read them for yourself, they are akin to an Urban Legend. That is, they may exist, or they may not, but it is pointless to discuss them.

'thann
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top